Logicboy03:


Newsflash for Joshthefirst; Humans are animals....

Joshthefirst: question for lb:

If you see your terrible and hateful neighbour, who is human, and see your pet dog trapped in a burning building, who would you save?

Logicboy03:



The human.

Why?

1) I am a humanist- humans first
2) Unlike the old testament God, I believe people can change. He might become useful to human society. I wont smite him
3) A human can contribute to mankind, a dog can not improve the situation of mankind
4) I will become his hero
5) Dog meat is tasty, according to the food connoisseurs

Joshthefirst: all I see in your post is mankind, mankind, mankind, myself and dogmeat.

God has been giving you a chance to change all this while. Do not insult his patience and love for you.

Logicboy03:





I gave you sensible, well thought out reasons and yet you push them aside....do you hate reason n logic?

Joshthefirst: which kind of bad belle is this?
How did I push aside your reasons?
Smh.
Okay. A question from your answer:

Why are you humanist?

Logicboy03:

Cos humanism makes sense. Simple

Unlike you- you re a christian because of faith and not because christianity is sensible.

You either were born into christianity or you were converted by a skilled liar evangelist

Joshthefirst: humanism makes more sense? And yet we're all animals?

I did not become a christian just because of faith. The faith made sense to me. When I realized that I was a sinner heading for hell, it made sense to accept Gods way of salvation. When people have faith that doesn't make sense, its religion.
Just like atheism. You're no different from religious people, you just think you're smarter because you've broken away from ritualistic nonsense that doesn't change men.

Logicboy03:



Guy, you are only deceiving yourself. If you like, quote the whole thesaurus, it wont change the sound argument that Plaetton made.


1) Pictures are subjective in the sense that people's perception will be different when it comes to describing what they saw.
2) Intuition is not always right. Infact, the world was not made for us. So, our intuition can not be in exact tune with the world


Following point number 2, it is intuitive that the world is flat. If you meet tribal people in the north of Nigeria, they will tell you tht the world is flat. It takes deep study of sailing, waves and movement of the sun to realise that the earth is not flat, despite standing on flat ground.


If God is intuitive, then it makes it even better to argue against it.

Kay 17:

Too far off, what is intuition?

Logicboy03:


intuition
ɪntjʊˈɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning

========================================


DeepSight claims that we know God by intuition. This even makes God less real

Kay 17:

It appears to be the opposite of deep thought/consideration.

Deep Sight:

The point is the improbability of the existence of something such as a house - absent a builder.

You think that it is impossible for mindless matter to combine and coalesce over time to form a house. And yet you believe that mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring house that houses you: your body: a fearsome mystery: a system more powerful, coordinated and intelligent than the most advanced computers can ever be. . . .

Joshthefirst: you don't believe you're special? You're no different from the animal? Its a wonder your life is in direct difference to your thoughts.

Kay 17: Also everyone assumes the human sight/mind is perfect to capture the message from the pictures. Why shouldn't we believe our perception could be impaired, by bias for example.

Mr Troll: this is the argument plaetton was making and which DS was spitting upon.

plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

Deep Sight:

This is true and correct, but I fail to see its relevance to this thread.

All of this could similarly be said on the question of whether anything around you actually exists at all or is all in your head: a mirage. A futile line of thinking, which, even where true, is meaningless for everyone, and profits no one anything.

truthislight: If the atheist we have on this forum is half as opened minded as you, then the effort being expended on them would have been worth it.

*though it is most probable that it will yield any useful outcome, since there are probable extraneous reasons responsible for that*

However:



Good of you to allow reasonableness to see the light of day.

But


'You' : "The atoms themselves have an arrangement decided by tiny individualistic sub-particles, which make the most dazzling behaviour"

^
base on that your observation of the rock and its composition, what then caused it to defy its natural composition to become the other comparable object, soft and mealable with a 'mind'(since the brain is made from similar matter) ?

Does the blind rock have a mind of its own that directed it to attain such a ........ ? Smh.

How did it move from A(rock) to B(brain) ?
Please, explain.



yeah! Easy to make a leap instead of contemplating certain foundamental questions, jumping is easy and convenient.

The pupies with closed eyes accessing the mothers nipples to suckle is not worth the effort, is not worth asking how and why that is inherent amongst this animals/mamals, at such a tender age though the rock cannot move itself.
That same pupy, when dead is like the rock in question, why the difference ?



why all those ^ and not matter lying down ? Is the rock and the dead body not the same compositions ? Why all that that you are talking about : "Monarchy. Traditional Authority" ? No need, when you see rocks, say such to it.

What directs the move from matter to living man and back to matter ? Is the rock that intelligent to undergo all those processes all by itself? I will say yes, why not ? Afteral, there was no intelligence needed to direct all that.

Dont blame me for my conclussions. The world and earth and the univers did not need any intelligence to direct affires in it, Let alone the human brain.
My own house fell from the skies, the skies are the magical places where houses are form without a builder.

SMH SMH SMH SMH SMH................

Sometimes, i just wander if certain set of people are worth the effort. SMH

MyJoe:

Bravo. I see your writing has improved a great deal. It appears that what the Theocratic Ministry School could not do in years Nairaland has done in months. Seun must hear this! If I had the ears of those concerned (the governing elders), I would ask them to include writing exercises in the TMS, instead of just talk, talk and talk. Writing may not have been of much apparent use to “kingdom interests” in the past but nowadays with these Internet forums and the need for you young Kingdom soldiers to go online and fly the flag, change is inevitable.

It’s too early yet for me to say whether you are now able to follow structured arguments or not. But, most importantly, it appears that while your writing has improved your mind has not. As you can be seen doing against me here, you still pluck lies out of your bottom to defend Jehovah.

Deep Sight:

Spitting on? ? ? ?

His Argument - - - - - - >



MY VERY FIRST RESPONSE - - - >



Did you miss my very first five words ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

GET THE POINT NOW? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Mr Troll: While i saw your first 5 lines, it did not necessarily translate to the second paragraph. THAT is what i was trying to explain to you, we both agreed that what he said was true and correct but where we differed was on whether it was an escapist response and therefore meaningless. You seemed bent on insisting it was so even after several explanations by the poster himself.

No matter how he explained it, you kept insisting it was an escapist response and could be used for any and every subject on earth. The thing come tire me.

The point is that even if Plaetton agreed to discuss on the significance of the pictures and their arrangement, whatever we finally deduce from them should not be taken as objective truths. I took them on as a form of mental exercise, if the thread had not been derailed so i would have continued further. . .

plaetton:

Here is what I think happened.

Deepsight, like most us usually do, opened the thread to elicit certain types of responses in order that he me may direct and tele-guide the thread towards some certain of his own truths and conclusions.

When I interjected in the manner that I did, He felt threatened of loosing control of the thread, so he violently lashed out with strong provocative words as a means of driving me away, or at the least, to discredit my viewpoint so that he could steer the thread to his intended conclusions.
That was why no matter how many times I repeated and tried to clarify, he just kept going like a broken record. lol.

I think that is what is called being "Dogmatic".

Mr Troll: While i saw your first 5 lines, it did not necessarily translate to the second paragraph. THAT is what i was trying to explain to you, we both agreed that what he said was true and correct but where we differed was on whether it was an escapist response and therefore meaningless. You seemed bent on insisting it was so even after several explanations by the poster himself.

No matter how he explained it, you kept insisting it was an escapist response and could be used for any and every subject on earth. The thing come tire me.

The point is that even if Plaetton agreed to discuss on the significance of the pictures and their arrangement, whatever we finally deduce from them should not be taken as objective truths. I took them on as a form of mental exercise, if the thread had not been derailed so i would have continued further. . .

Deep Sight:

You are not being objective or rational.

Did you not see the apocalypse of his argument in the instance of the example of the leaf? Did you not see the world-ending contrsdiction therein which just showed once and finally that he was spewing empty nonsensical escapist gibberish? To use his eyes to find objective truth about the leaf and say at the same time that what is seen cannot disclose objective truth?

Nor can he escape with appeal to culture and memory for even in the instance of the leaf, it is a plate for one man, food for another and decoration for a third. And yet he still deigned to use his eyes to state some fundamental objective truths about it. This says it all.

If after that, you dont see the point, I can only smile.

Logicboy03:



If you like, put all the big words in the dictionary in your arguments, your sophistry wont change the facts.

The fact is that the pictures are there but our descriptions will always be subjective. We cant test the rock nor ask the man what exactly he was doing. What if he wasnt thinking but just posing for the camera?


Guy, siddon

Deep Sight:

Even posing for the camera involves a thought. The simple point that you make clowns of yourselves on. Plaetton laughably even said what if he is not thinking but wishing, or something as assinely s.illy as that. Wishes, of whatever nature, are thoughts.

Such profoundly thick headed desperation to evade the spectre of a thinking being and its philosophical and ontological ramifications.

And, of course, you also, would ignore the tradedy of the example of the leaf. An example given by plaetton which is a whole sale concession of my point, and rips his argument to shreds.

This is of course the same way you ignored the damning point on whether science itself relies on images seen or not.

Hurrah. Good morning.

Deep Sight:

You are not being objective or rational.

Did you not see the apocalypse of his argument in the instance of the example of the leaf? Did you not see the world-ending contrsdiction therein which just showed once and finally that he was spewing empty nonsensical escapist gibberish? To use his eyes to find objective truth about the leaf and say at the same time that what is seen cannot disclose objective truth?

Nor can he escape with appeal to culture and memory for even in the instance of the leaf, it is a plate for one man, food for another and decoration for a third. And yet he still deigned to use his eyes to state some fundamental objective truths about it. This says it all.

If after that, you dont see the point, I can only smile.

Mr Troll: This is funny. Anyway, i don't think what you keep saying is what Plaetton meant. Maybe i read it wrong. I'm tired of holding forte for him sef.

The point is, whatever we deduce from here should not be taken as objective truths, they can hardly pass as conclusive evidence in any case. That is my position in this.

Logicboy03:



Nice try. If he was only posing for the camera, he would have finish thinking before the shot was taken. All he had to do was pose then snap. The pic wouldn't be of a man thinking. It would be of a man posing


Sophistry will always fail u

Deep Sight:

Even the act of posing denotes a thought. While doing it, you are in the thought of carrying on a pose.

My friend, you cannot escape thought.

A simple truism you would have become enlightened to if you had undertook the kindergarten exercise set out in my OP.

Logicboy03:



Sharrap.

If I held a camera and told you to pose like a thinking man how many seconds would it take you to strike the pose. Wouldn't you have to finish the pose before I took the picture?


Even at that, do you consciously think before putting your hand on the chin? It is almost an involuntary action.

Kay 17:

1st Picture -- invokes the resemblance of the Thinking Man, deep in contemplation. The strenuous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks.